Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf

Dedications
To Jessica, Maria, Edward, Robert and Jonothan – in their hands rests the future.
To my father, J. F. Marchman, Jr, for passing on to me his love of airplanes and to my
teacher, Dr Jim Williams, whose example inspired me to pursue a career in education.

Aircraft Design
Projects
for engineering students
Lloyd R. Jenkinson
James F. Marchman III
OXFORD AMSTERDAM BOSTON LONDON NEW YORK PARIS
SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO

Butterworth-Heinemann
An imprint of Elsevier Science
Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP
200 Wheeler Road, Burlington MA 01803
First published 2003
Copyright © 2003, Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including
photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether
or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without
the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of
a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road,
London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written
permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed
to the publisher
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science
and Technology Rights Department in Oxford,
UK: phone: (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax: (+44) (0) 1865 853333;
e-mail: permissions@elsevier.co.uk. You may also complete your request
on-line via the Elsevier Science homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by
selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then ‘Obtaining Permissions’
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 0 7506 5772 3
Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., India
Printed in UK
For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications
visit our website at www.bh.com

Contents
Preface xiii
xvi
xvii
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1 Design methodology 1
2 Preliminary design 6
2.1 Problem definition 6
7
8
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3 Understanding the problem 8
2.1.4 Innovation 9
2.1.5 Organising the design process 10
2.1.6 Summary 11
The customers
Aircraft viability
2.2 Information retrieval 11
2.2.1 Existing and competitive aircraft 11
2.2.2 Technical reports 12
2.2.3 Operational experience 12
2.3 Aircraft requirements 12
2.3.1 Market and mission issues 13
2.3.2 Airworthiness and other standards 13
2.3.3 Environmental and social issues 13
2.3.4 Commercial and manufacturing considerations 14
2.3.5 Systems and equipment requirements 14
2.4 Configuration options 14
2.5 Initial baseline sizing 15
2.5.1 Initial mass (weight) estimation 16
2.5.2 Initial layout drawing 19
2.6 Baseline evaluation 19
2.6.1 Mass statement 19
2.6.2 Aircraft balance 21
2.6.3 Aerodynamic analysis 22
2.6.4 Engine data 24
2.6.5 Aircraft performance 25
2.6.6 Initial technical report 25
2.7 Refining the initial layout 25
2.7.1 Constraint analysis 26
2.7.2 Trade-off studies 29

vi Contents
2.8 Refined baseline design 31
2.9 Parametric and trade studies 32
2.9.1 Example aircraft used to illustrate trade-off and
parametric studies 33
2.10 Final baseline configuration 39
2.10.1 Additional technical considerations 39
2.10.2 Broader-based considerations 39
2.11 Type specification 40
2.11.1 Report format 40
2.11.2 Illustrations, drawings and diagrams 41
References 41
3 Introduction to the project studies 43
4 Project study: scheduled long-range business jet 46
4.1 Introduction 47
4.2 Project brief 49
4.2.1 Project requirements 50
4.3 Project analysis 50
4.3.1 Payload/range 50
4.3.2 Passenger comfort 51
4.3.3 Field requirements 51
4.3.4 Technology assessments 52
4.3.5 Marketing 53
4.3.6 Alternative roles 54
4.3.7 Aircraft developments 54
4.3.8 Commercial analysis 55
4.5 Design concepts 57
4.5.1 Conventional layout(s) 57
4.5.2 Braced wing/canard layout 58
4.5.3 Three-surface layout 59
4.5.4 Blended body layout 60
4.5.5 Configuration selection 61
4.6 Initial sizing and layout 62
4.6.1 Mass estimation 62
4.6.2 Engine size and selection 63
4.6.3 Wing geometry 63
4.6.4 Fuselage geometry 67
4.6.5 Initial ‘baseline aircraft’ general arrangement drawing 68
4.7 Initial estimates 70
4.7.1 Mass and balance analysis 70
4.7.2 Aerodynamic estimations 75
4.7.3 Initial performance estimates 76
4.7.4 Constraint analysis 78
4.7.5 Revised performance estimates 79
4.7.6 Cost estimations 80
4.8 Trade-off studies 82
4.8.1 Alternative roles and layout 82
4.8.2 Payload/range studies 85

Contents vii
4.8.3 Field performance studies 86
4.8.4 Wing geometry studies 87
4.8.5 Economic analysis 91
4.9 Initial ‘type specification’ 96
4.9.1 General aircraft description 96
4.9.2 Aircraft geometry 97
4.9.3 Mass (weight) and performance statements 97
4.9.4 Economic and operational issues 98
4.10 Study review 99
References 100
5 Project study: military training system 101
5.1 Introduction 102
5.2.1 Aircraft requirements 103
5.2.2 Mission profiles 104
5.4.1 Technical analysis 108
5.4.2 Aircraft configurations 110
5.4.3 Engine data 110
5.6 Initial sizing 112
5.6.1 Initial baseline layout 113
5.7.1 Mass estimates 115
5.7.2 Aerodynamic estimates 117
5.7.3 Performance estimates 119
5.8 Constraint analysis 129
5.8.1 Take-off distance 129
5.8.2 Approach speed 129
5.8.3 Landing distance 130
5.8.4 Fundamental flight analysis 130
5.8.5 Combat turns at SL 130
5.8.6 Combat turn at 25 000 ft 131
5.8.7 Climb rate 131
5.8.8 Constraint diagram 131
5.9 Revised baseline layout 132
5.9.1 Wing fuel volume 133
5.10 Further work 134
5.11.1 Strengths 137
5.11.2 Weaknesses 137
5.11.3 Opportunities 139
5.11.4 Threats 139
5.11.5 Revised aircraft layout 140
5.12 Postscript 141
References 141

viii Contents
6 Project study: electric-powered racing aircraft 143
6.2.1 The racecourse and procedures 144
6.2.2 History of Formula 1 racing 145
6.2.3 Comments from a racing pilot 146
6.2.4 Official Formula 1 rules 147
6.4.1 Existing aircraft 150
6.4.2 Configurational analysis 152
6.4.3 Electrical propulsion system 154
6.6 Initial sizing 158
6.6.1 Initial mass estimations 159
6.6.2 Initial aerodynamic considerations 162
6.6.3 Propeller analysis 165
6.7 Initial performance estimation 166
6.7.1 Maximum level speed 166
6.7.2 Climb performance 169
6.7.3 Turn performance 171
6.7.4 Field performance 173
References 174
7 Project study: a dual-mode (road/air) vehicle 175
7.2 Project brief (flying car or roadable aircraft?) 176
7.3 Initial design considerations 177
7.4 Design concepts and options 179
7.5 Initial layout 181
7.6.2 Powerplant selection 189
7.6.3 Weight and balance predictions 190
7.6.4 Flight performance estimates 190
7.6.5 Structural details 193
7.6.6 Stability, control and ‘roadability’ assessment 196
7.6.7 Systems 197
7.6.8 Vehicle cost assessment 198
7.7 Wind tunnel testing 199
References 201
8 Project study: advanced deep interdiction aircraft 202
8.2.1 Threat analysis 203
8.2.2 Stealth considerations 204
8.2.3 Aerodynamic efficiency 206

Contents ix
8.4 Design concepts and selection 210
8.6.1 Initial mass estimations 216
8.6.2 Initial aerodynamic estimations 217
8.7 Constraint analysis 221
8.7.1 Conclusion 227
8.8.1 General arrangement 228
8.8.2 Mass evaluation 233
8.8.3 Aircraft balance 233
8.8.4 Aerodynamic analysis 234
8.8.5 Propulsion 241
8.9 Performance estimations 242
8.9.1 Manoeuvre performance 242
8.9.2 Mission analysis 250
8.9.3 Field performance 254
8.10 Cost estimations 259
8.12 Design review 263
8.12.1 Final baseline aircraft description 263
8.12.2 Future considerations 267
References 268
9 Project study: high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) uninhabited aerial
surveillance vehicle (UASV) 270
9.5.1 Lockheed Martin U-2S 276
9.5.2 Grob Strato 2C 276
9.5.3 Northrop Grumman RQ-4A Global Hawk 277
9.5.4 Grob G520 Strato 1 277
9.5.5 Stemme S10VC 277
9.6.1 Conventional layout 279
9.6.2 Joined wing layout 280
9.6.3 Flying wing layout 280
9.6.4 Braced wing layout 281
9.6.5 Conﬁguration selection 282
9.7.1 Aircraft mass estimation 283
9.7.2 Fuel volume assessment 285
9.7.3 Wing loading analysis 285
9.7.4 Aircraft speed considerations 286

x Contents
9.7.5 Wing planform geometry 288
9.7.6 Engine sizing 290
9.7.7 Initial aircraft layout 292
9.7.8 Aircraft data summary 293
9.8.1 Component mass estimations 294
9.8.2 Aircraft mass statement and balance 297
9.8.3 Aircraft drag estimations 298
9.8.4 Aircraft lift estimations 299
9.8.5 Aircraft propulsion 300
9.8.6 Aircraft performance estimations 300
9.11 Aircraft speciﬁcation 307
9.11.1 Aircraft description 307
9.11.2 Aircraft data 307
References 309
10 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 310
10.5 Initial layout and sizing 313
10.5.1 Wing selection 313
10.5.2 Engine selection 314
10.5.3 Hull design 314
10.5.4 Sponson design 316
10.5.5 Other water operation considerations 317
10.5.6 Other design factors 318
10.6.2 Mass and balance 318
10.6.3 Performance estimations 321
10.6.4 Stability and control 323
10.6.5 Structural details 323
10.7 Baseline layout 324
10.9 Further work 325
References 329
11 Design organisation and presentation 331
11.1 Student’s checklist 332
11.1.1 Initial questions 332
11.1.2 Technical tasks 332
11.2 Teamworking 333
11.2.1 Team development 335

Contents xi
11.2.2 Team member responsibilities 336
11.2.3 Team leadership requirements 336
11.2.4 Team operating principles 337
11.2.5 Brainstorming 337
11.3 Managing design meetings 338
11.3.1 Prior to the meeting 339
11.3.2 Minutes of the meeting 339
11.3.3 Dispersed meetings 341
11.4 Writing technical reports 341
11.4.1 Planning the report 342
11.4.2 Organising the report 342
11.4.3 Writing the report 343
11.4.4 Referencing 344
11.4.5 Use of ﬁgures, tables and appendices 345
11.4.6 Group reports 346
11.4.7 Review of the report 347
11.5 Making a technical presentation 348
11.5.1 Planning the presentation 349
11.5.2 Organising the presentation 349
11.5.3 Use of equipment 350
11.5.4 Management of the presentation 351
11.5.5 Review of the presentation 352
11.6 Design course structure and student assessment 353
11.6.1 Course aims 353
11.6.2 Course objectives 354
11.6.3 Course structure 354
11.6.4 Assessment criteria 355
11.6.5 Peer review 356
11.7 Naming your aircraft 356
Footnote 357
Appendix A: Units and conversion factors 359
Derived units 360
Funny units 360
Conversions (exact conversions can be found in British Standards
BS350/2856) 361
Some useful constants (standard values) 362
Appendix B: Design data sources 363
Technical books (in alphabetical order) 363
Reference books 365
Research papers 365
Journals and articles 366
The Internet 366
Index 367

Preface
There are many excellent texts covering aircraft design from a variety of perspectives.1
Some of these are aimed at specific audiences ranging from practising aerospace engi-
neers, to engineering students, to amateur airplane builders. Others cover specialized
aspects of the subject such as undercarriage or propulsion system design. Some of
these are quite detailed in their presentation of the design process while others are very
general in scope. Some are overviews of all the basic aeronautical engineering subjects
that come together in the creation of a design.
University faculty that teach aircraft design courses often face difficult choices when
evaluating texts or references for their students’ use. Many texts that are suitable for use
in a design class are biased toward particular classes of aircraft such as military aircraft,
general aviation, or airliners. A text that gives excellent coverage of design basics may
prove slanted toward a class of aircraft different from that year’s project. Alternatively,
those that emphasize the correct type of vehicle may treat design fundamentals in
an unfamiliar manner. The situation may be further complicated in classes that have
several teams of students working on different types of designs, some of which ‘fit’ the
chosen text while others do not.
Most teachers would prefer a text that emphasizes the basic thought processes of
preliminary design. Such a text should encourage students to seek an understanding
of the approaches and constraints appropriate to their design assignment before they
venture too far into the analytical processes. On the other hand, students would like a
text which simply tells them where to input their design objectives into a ‘black-box’
computer code or generalized spreadsheet, and preferably, where to catch the final
design drawings and specifications as they are printed out. Faculty would like their
students to begin the design process with a thorough review of their previous courses
in aircraft performance, aerodynamics, structures, flight dynamics, propulsion, etc.
Students prefer to start with an Internet search, hoping to find a solution to their
problem that requires only minimal ‘tweaking’.
The aim of this book is to present a two pronged approach to the design process. It
is expected to appeal to both faculty and students. It sets out the basics of the design
thought process and the pathway one must travel in order to reach an aircraft design
goal for any category of aircraft. Then it presents a variety of design case studies.
These are intended to offer examples of the way the design process may be applied
to conceptual design problems typical of those actually used at the advanced level in
academic and other training curricula. It does not offer a step-by-step ‘how to’ design
guide, but shows how the basic aircraft preliminary design process can be successfully
applied to a wide range of unique aircraft. In so doing, it shows that each set of design
objectives presents its own peculiar collection of challenges and constraints. It also
shows how the classical design process can be applied to any problem.

xiv Preface
Case studies provide both student and instructor with a valuable teaching/learning
tool, allowing them to examine the way others have approached particular design chal-
lenges. In the 1970s, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
published an excellent series of design case studies2
taken from real aircraft project
developments. These provided valuable insights into the development of several, then
current, aircraft. Some other texts have employed case studies taken from industrial
practice. Unfortunately, these tend to include aspects of design that are beyond the
conceptual phase, and which are not covered in academic design courses. While these
are useful in teaching design, they can be confusing to the student who may have diffi-
culty discerning where the conceptual aspects of the design process ends and detailed
design ensues. The case studies offered in this text are set in the preliminary design
phase. They emphasize the thought processes and analyses appropriate at this stage of
vehicle development.
Many of the case studies presented in this text were drawn from student projects.
Hence, they offer an insight into the conceptual design process from a student per-
spective. The case studies include design projects that won top awards in national and
international design competitions. These were sponsored by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
The authors bring a unique combination of perspectives and experience to this text.
It reflects both British and American academic practices in teaching aircraft design to
undergraduate students in aeronautical and aerospace engineering. Lloyd Jenkinson
has taught aircraft design at both Loughborough University and Southampton
University in the UK and Jim Marchman has taught both aircraft and spacecraft design
at Virginia Tech in the US. They have worked together since 1997 in an experiment
that combines students from Loughborough University and Virginia Tech in interna-
tional aircraft design teams.3
In this venture, teams of students from both universities
have worked jointly on a variety of aircraft design projects. They have used exchange
visits, the Internet and teleconference communications to work together progressively,
throughout the academic year, on the conceptual design of a novel aircraft.
In this book, the authors have attempted to build on their experience in international
student teaming. They present processes and techniques that reflect the best in British
and American design education and which have been proven to work well in both
academic systems. Dr Jenkinson also brings to this text his prior experience in the
aerospace industry of the UK, having worked on the design of several successful British
aircraft. Professor Marchman’s contribution to the text also reflects his experiences in
working with students and faculty in Thailand and France in other international design
team collaborative projects.
Theauthorsenvisionthistextassupplementingthepopularaircraftdesigntextbooks,
currently in use at universities around the world. Books such as those reviewed by
Mason1
could be employed to present the detailed aspects of the preliminary design
process. Working within established conceptual design methodology, this book will
provide a clearer picture of the way those detailed analyses may be adapted to a wide
range of aircraft types.
It would have been impossible to write this book without the hard work and enthusi-
asm shown by many of our students over more years than we care to remember. Their
continued interest in aircraft design project work and the smoothing of the difficulties
they sometimes experienced in progressing through the work was our inspiration. We
have also benefited from the many colleagues and friends who have been generous in
sharing their encouragement and knowledge with us. Aircraft design educators seem

Preface xv
to be a special breed of engineers who selﬂessly give their effort and time to inspire
anyone who wants to participate in their common interest. We are fortunate to count
them as our friends.
References
1 Bill Mason’s web page: www.aoe.vt.edu/Mason/ACinfoTOC.html.
2 AIAA web page: www.aiaa.org/publications/index.
3 Jenkinson, L. R., Page, G. J., Marchman, J. F., ‘A model for international teaming in air-
craft design education’, Journal of Aircraft Design, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 239–247, Elsevier,
December 2000.

Acknowledgements
To all the students and staff at Loughborough and Southampton Universities who
have, over many years, contributed directly and indirectly to my understanding of the
design of aircraft, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation. For their help
with proof reading and technical advice, I thank my friends Paul Eustace and Keith
Payne. Our gratitude to all those people in industry who have provided assistance with
the projects. Finally, to my wife and family for their support and understanding over
the time when my attention was distracted by the writing of the book.
Lloyd Jenkinson
I would like to acknowledge the work done by the teams of Virginia Tech and
Loughborough University aircraft design students in creating the designs which I
attempted to describe in Chapters 7 and 10 and the contributions of colleagues such
as Bill Mason, Nathan Kirschbaum, and Gary Page in helping guide those students in
the design process. Without these people these chapters could not have been written.
Jim Marchman

Introduction
It is tempting to title this book ‘Flights of Fancy’ as this captures the excitement and
expectations at the start of a new design project. The main objective of this book is
to try to convey this feeling to those who are starting to undertake aircraft conceptual
design work for the first time. This often takes place in an educational or industrial
training establishment. Too often, in academic studies, the curiosity and fascination of
project work is lost under a morass of mathematics, computer programming, analytical
methods, project management, time schedules and deadlines. This is a shame as there
are very few occasions in your professional life that you will have the chance to let your
imagination and creativity flow as freely as in these exercises. As students or young
engineers, it is advisable to make the most of such opportunities.
When university faculty or counsellors interview prospective students and ask why
they want to enter the aeronautics profession, the majority will mention that they want
to design aircraft or spacecraft. They often tell of having drawn pictures of aeroplanes
since early childhood and they imagine themselves, immediately after graduation, pro-
ducing drawings for the next generation of aircraft. During their first years in the
university, these young men and women are often less than satisfied with their basic
courses in science, mathematics, and engineering as they long to ‘design’ something.
When they finally reach the all-important aircraft design course, for which they have
yearned for so long, they are often surprised. They find that the process of design
requires far more than sketching a pretty picture of their dream aircraft and entering
the performance specifications into some all-purpose computer program which will
print out a final design report.
Design is a systematic process. It not only draws upon all of the student’s previous
engineering instruction in structures, aerodynamics, propulsion, control and other
subjects, but also, often for the first time, requires that these individual academic
subjects be applied to a problem concurrently. Students find that the best aerodynamic
solution is not equated to the best structural solution to a problem. Compromises
must be made. They must deal with conflicting constraints imposed on their design
by control requirements and propulsion needs. They may also have to deal with real
world political, environmental, ethical, and human factors. In the end, they find they
must also do practical things like making sure that their ideal wing will pass through
the hangar door!
An overview of the book
This book seeks to guide the student through the preliminary stages of the aircraft
design process. This is done by both explaining the process itself (Chapters 1 and 2)
and by providing a variety of examples of actual student design projects (Chapters 3

xviii Introduction
to 10). The projects have been used as coursework at universities in the UK and the US.
It should be noted that the project studies presented are not meant to provide a ‘fill in
the blank’ template to be used by future students working on similar design problems
but to provide insight into the process itself. Each design problem, regardless of how
similar it may appear to an earlier aircraft design, is unique and requires a thorough
and systematic investigation. The project studies presented in this book merely serve
as examples of how the design process has been followed in the past by other teams
faced with the task of solving a unique problem in aircraft design.
It is impossible to design aircraft without some knowledge of the fundamental the-
ories that influence and control aircraft operations. It is not possible to include such
information in this text but there are many excellent books available which are written
to explain and present these theories. A bibliography containing some of these books
and other sources of information has been added to the end of the book. To understand
the detailed calculations that are described in the examples it will be necessary to use
the data and theories in such books. Some design textbooks do contain brief examples
on how the analytical methods are applied to specific aircraft. But such studies are
mainly used to support and illustrate the theories and do not take an overall view of
the preliminary design process.
The initial part of the book explains the preliminary design process. Chapter 1 briefly
describes the overall process by which an aircraft is designed. It sets the preliminary
design stages into the context of the total transformation from the initial request for
proposal to the aircraft first flight and beyond. Although this book only deals with
the early stages of the design process, it is necessary for students to understand the
subsequent stages so that decisions are taken wisely. For example, aircraft design is
by its nature an iterative process. This means that estimates and assumptions have
sometimes to be made with inadequate data. Such ‘guesstimates’ must be checked when
more accurate data on the aircraft is available. Without this improvement to the fidelity
of the analytical methods, subsequent design stages may be seriously jeopardized.
Chapter 2 describes, in detail, the work done in the early (conceptual) design process.
It provides a ‘route map’ to guide a student from the initial project brief to the validated
‘baseline’ aircraft layout. The early part of the chapter includes sections that deal with
‘defining and understanding the problem’, ‘collecting useful information’ and ‘setting
the aircraft requirements’. This is followed by sections that show how the initial aircraft
configuration is produced. Finally, there are sections illustrating how the initial aircraft
layout can be refined using constraint analysis and trade-off studies. The chapter ends
with a description of the ‘aircraft type specification’. This report is commonly used to
collate all the available data about the aircraft. This is important as the full geometrical
description and data will be needed in the detailed design process that follows.
Chapter 3 introduces the seven project studies that follow (Chapters 4 to 10). It
describes each of the studies and provides a format for the sequence of work to be
followed in some of the studies. The design studies are not sequential, although the
earlier ones are shown in slightly more detail. It is possible to read any of the studies
separately, so a short description of each is presented.
Chapters 4 to 10 inclusive contain each of the project studies. The projects are selected
from different aeronautical applications (general aviation, civil transports, military
aircraft) and range from small to heavy aircraft. For conciseness of presentation the
detailed calculations done to support the final designs have not been included in these
chapters but the essential input values are given so that students can perform their
own analysis. The projects are mainly based on work done by students on aeronautical
engineering degree courses. One of the studies is from industrial work and some have

Introduction xix
been undertaken for entry to design competitions. Each study has been selected to
illustrate a different aspect of preliminary design and to illustrate the varied nature of
aircraft conceptual design.
The final chapter (11) offers guidance on student design work. It presents a set of
questions to guide students in successfully completing an aircraft design project. It
includes some observations about working in groups. Help is also given on the writing
of technical reports and making technical presentations.
Engineering units of measurement
Experience in running design projects has shown that students become confused by
the units used to define parameters in aeronautics. Some detailed definitions and con-
versions are contained in Appendix A at the end of the book and a quick résumé is
given here.
Many different systems of measurement are used throughout the world but two have
become most common in aeronautical engineering. In the US the now inappropriately
named ‘British’ system (foot, pound and second) is widely used. In the UK and over
most of Europe, System International (SI) (metres, newton and second) units are stan-
dard. It is advised that students only work in one system. Confusion (and disaster) can
occur if they are mixed. The results of the design analysis can be quoted in both types
of unit by applying standard conversions. The conversions below are typical:
1 inch = 25.4 mm
1 sq. ft = 0.0929 sq. m
1 US gal = 3.785 litres
1 US gal = 0.833 Imp. gal
1 statute mile = 1.609 km
1 ft/s = 0.305 m/s
1 knot = 1.69 ft/s
1 pound force = 4.448 newtons
1 horsepower = 745.7 watts
1 foot = 0.305 metres
1 cu. ft = 28.32 litres
1 Imp. gal = 4.546 litres
1 litre = 0.001 cubic metres
1 nautical mile = 1.852 km
1 knot = 0.516 m/s
1 knot = 1.151 mph
1 pound mass = 0.454 kilogram
1 horsepower = 550 ft lb/s
To avoid confusing pilots and air traffic control, some international standardization of
units has had to be accepted. These include:
Aircraft altitude – feet Aircraft forward speed – knots∗
Aircraft range – nautical miles Climb rate – feet per minute
(∗
Be extra careful with the definition of units used for aircraft speed as pilots like to use
airspeed in IAS (indicated airspeed as shown on their flight instruments) and engineers
like TAS (true airspeed, the speed relative to the ambient air)).
Fortunately throughout the world, the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA)
has been adopted as the definition of atmospheric conditions. ISA charts and data
can be found in most design textbooks. In this book, which is aimed at a worldwide
readership, where possible both SI and ‘British’ units have been quoted. Our apologies
if this confuses the text in places.

xx Introduction
English – our uncommon tongue
Part of this book grew out of the authors’ collaboration in a program of international
student design projects over several years. As we have reported our experiences from
that program, observers have often noted that one thing that makes our international
collaboration easier than some others is the common language. On the other hand,
one thing we and our students have learned from this experience is that many of the
aspects of our supposedly common tongue really do not have much in common.
Pairing an Englishman and an American to create a textbook aimed at both the
US, British and other markets is an interesting exercise in spelling and language skills.
While (or is it whilst?) the primary language spoken in the United Kingdom and the
United States grows from the same roots, it has very obviously evolved somewhat
differently. An easy but interesting way to observe some of these differences is to take
a page of text from a British book and run it through an American spelling check
program. Checking an American text with an ‘English’ spell checker will produce
similar surprises. We spell many words differently, usually in small ways. Is it ‘color’ or
‘colour’; do we ‘organize’ our work or ‘organise’ it? In addition, do we use double (“) or
single (‘) strokes to indicate a quote or give emphasis to a word or phrase? Will we hold
our next meeting at 9:00 am or at 9.00 am? (we won’t even mention the 24 hour clock!).
There are also some obvious differences between terminology employed in the US
and UK. Does our automobile have a ‘bonnet’ and a ‘boot’ or a ‘hood’ and a ‘trunk’
and does its engine run on ‘gasoline’ or ‘petrol’? American ‘airplanes’ have ‘landing
gear’ while British ‘aeroplanes/airplanes or aircraft’ have ‘undercarriages’, does it have
‘reheat’ or an ‘afterburner’. Fortunately, most of us have watched enough television
shows and movies from both countries to be comfortable with these differences.
As we have pieced together this work we have often found ourselves (and our com-
puter spell checkers) editing each other’s work to make it conform to the conventions in
spelling, punctuation, and phraseology, assumed to be common to each of our versions
of this common language. The reader may ﬁnd this evident as he or she goes from one
section of the text to another and detects changes in wording and terminology which
reﬂect the differing conventions in language use in the US and UK. It is hoped that
these variations, sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious, will not prove an obstacle
to the reader’s understanding of our work but will instead make it more interesting.
Finally
All aircraft projects are unique, therefore, it is impossible to provide a ‘template’ for the
work involved in the preliminary design process. However, with knowledge of the detail
steps in the preliminary design process and with examples of similar project work, it
is hoped that students will feel freer to concentrate on the innovative and analytical
aspects of the project. In this way they will develop their technical and communication
abilities in the absorbing context of preliminary aircraft design.

1
Design methodology
The start of the design process requires the recognition of a ‘need’. This normally comes
from a ‘project brief’ or a ‘request for proposals (RFP)’. Such documents may come
from various sources:
• Established or potential customers.
• Government defence agencies.
• Analysis of the market and the corresponding trends from aircraft demand.
• Development of an existing product (e.g. aircraft stretch or engine change).
• Exploitation of new technologies and other innovations from research and
development.
It is essential to understand at the start of the study where the project originated and to
recognise what external factors are influential to the design before the design process
is started.
At the end of the design process, the design team will have fully specified their design
configuration and released all the drawings to the manufacturers. In reality, the design
process never ends as the designers have responsibility for the aircraft throughout its
operational life. This entails the issue of modifications that are found essential during
service and any repairs and maintenance instructions that are necessary to keep the
aircraft in an airworthy condition.
The design method to be followed from the start of the project to the nominal end can
be considered to fall into three main phases. These phases are illustrated in Figure 1.1.
The preliminary phase (sometimes called the conceptual design stage) starts with the
project brief and ends when the designers have found and refined a feasible baseline
design layout. In some industrial organisations, this phase is referred to as the ‘feasibil-
ity study’. At the end of the preliminary design phase, a document is produced which
contains a summary of the technical and geometric details known about the baseline
design. This forms the initial draft of a document that will be subsequently revised
to contain a thorough description of the aircraft. This is known as the aircraft ‘Type
Specification’.
The next phase (project design) takes the aircraft configuration defined towards
the end of the preliminary design phase and involves conducting detailed analysis to
improve the technical confidence in the design. Wind tunnel tests and computational
fluid dynamic analysis are used to refine the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft. Finite
element analysis is used to understand the structural integrity. Stability and control
analysis and simulations will be used to appreciate the flying characteristics. Mass and
balance estimations will be performed in increasingly fine detail. Operational factors
(cost, maintenance and marketing) and manufacturing processes will be investigated

2 Aircraft Design Projects
Testing
Manufacturing
Costs and effort
Build-up
Detail design
Project design
Preliminary design
Timescale
Fig. 1.1 The design process
to determine what effects these may have on the final design layout. All these invest-
igations will be done so that the company will be able to take a decision to ‘proceed
to manufacture’. To do this requires knowledge that the aircraft and its novel features
will perform as expected and will be capable of being manufactured in the timescales
envisaged. The project design phase ends when either this decision has been taken or
when the project is cancelled.
The third phase of the design process (detail design) starts when a decision to build
the aircraft has been taken. In this phase, all the details of the aircraft are translated
into drawings, manufacturing instructions and supply requests (subcontractor agree-
ments and purchase orders). Progressively, throughout this phase, these instructions
are released to the manufacturers.
Clearly, as the design progresses from the early stages of preliminary design to the
detail and manufacturing phases the number of people working on the project increases
rapidly. In a large company only a handful of people (perhaps as few as 20) will be
involved at the start of the project but towards the end of the manufacturing phase
several thousand people may be employed. With this build-up of effort, the expenditure
on the project also escalates as indicated by the curved arrow on Figure 1.1.
Some researchers1
have demonstrated graphically the interaction between the cost
expended on the project, the knowledge acquired about the design and the resulting
reduction in the design freedom as the project matures. Figure 1.2 shows a typical
distribution. These researchers have argued for a more analytical understanding of the
requirement definition phase. They argue that this results in an increased understand-
ing of the effects of design requirements on the overall design process. This is shown
on Figure 1.2 as process II, compared to the conventional methods, process I. Under-
standing these issues will increase design flexibility, albeit at a slight increase in initial
expenditure. Such analytical processes are particularly significant in military, multi-
role, and international projects. In such case, fixing requirements too firmly and too
early, when little is known about the effects of such constraints, may have considerable
cost implications.
Much of the early work on the project is involved with the guarantee of technical
competence and efficiency of the design. This ensures that late changes to the design

Design methodology 3
100
0
%
Process II
Timescale
A B C D
Cost
Design
flexibility
Cost expended
Process I
II
I
Region Task
A Defining requirements
B Conceptual design phase
C Project design phase
D Detail design phase
Fig. 1.2 Design flexibility
layout are avoided or, at best, reduced. Such changes are expensive and may delay the
completion of the project. Managers are eager to validate the design to a high degree
of confidence during the preliminary and project phases. A natural consequence of this
policy is the progressive ‘freezing’ of the design configuration as the project matures.
In the early preliminary design stages any changes can (and are encouraged to) be
considered, yet towards the end of the project design phase only minor geometrical
and system modifications will be allowed. If the aircraft is not ‘good’ (well engineered)
by this stage then the project and possibly the whole company will be in difficulty.
Within the context described above, the preliminary design phase presents a significant
undertaking in the success of the project and ultimately of the company.
Design project work, as taught at most universities, concentrates on the preliminary
phase of the design process. The project brief, or request for proposal, is often used to
define the design problem. Alternatively, the problem may originate as a design topic
in a student competition sponsored by industry, a government agency, or a technical
society. Or the design project may be proposed locally by a professor or a team of
students. Such design project assignments range from highly detailed lists of design
objectives and performance requirements to rather vague calls for a ‘new and better’
replacement for existing aircraft. In some cases student teams may even be asked to
develop their own design objectives under the guidance of their design professor.
To better reflect the design atmosphere in an industry environment, design classes at
most universities involve teams of students rather than individuals. The use of multi-
disciplinary design teams employing students from different engineering disciplines is
being encouraged by industry and accreditation agencies.
The preliminary design process presented in this text is appropriate to both the indi-
vidual and the team design approach although most of the cases presented in later
chapters involved teams of design students. While, at first thought, it may appear that
the team approach to design will reduce the individual workload, this may not be so.

The interpersonal dynamics of working in a team requires extra effort. However, this
greatly enhances the design experience and adds team communications, management
andinterpersonnelinteractiontothetechnicalknowledgegainedfromtheprojectwork.
It is normal in team design projects to have all students conduct individual initial
assessments of the design requirements, study comparable aircraft, make initial estim-
ates for the size of their aircraft and produce an initial concept sketch. The full team will
then begin its task by examining these individual concepts and assessing their merits
as part of their team concept selection process. This will parallel the development of
a team management plan and project timeline. At this time, the group will allocate
various portions of the conceptual design process to individuals or small groups on
the team.
At this point in this chapter, a word needs to be said about the role of the computer
in the design process. It is natural that students, whose everyday lives are filled with
computer usage for everything from interpersonal communication to the solution of
complex engineering problems, should believe that the aircraft design process is one in
which they need only to enter the operational requirements into some supercomputer
and wait for the final design report to come out of the printer (Figure 1.3).
Indeed, therearemanycomputersoftwarepackagesavailablethatclaimtobe‘aircraft
design programs’ of one sort or another. It is not surprising that students, who have
read about new aircraft being ‘designed entirely on the computer’ in industry, believe
that they will be doing the same. They object to wasting time conducting all of the
basic analyses and studies recommended in this text, and feel that their time would
be much better spent searching for a student version of an all-encompassing aircraft
design code. They believe that this must be available from Airbus or Boeing if only they
can find the right person or web address.
While both simple aircraft ‘design’ codes and massive aerospace industry CAD
programs do exist and do play important roles, they have not yet replaced the basic pro-
cesses outlined in this text. Simple software packages which are often available freely at
various locations on the Internet, or with many modern aeronautical engineering texts,
can be useful in the specialist design tasks if one understands the assumptions and lim-
itations implicit in their analysis. Many of these are simple computer codes based on
Output
Design
your own
airplane
in 5 min
Fig. 1.3 Student view of design

Design methodology 5
STAB
&
CONT
P
R
O
P
U
L
S
I
O
N
STRUCTURES
2 AM
AERO-
DYNAMIC
A/C
PERF
LU
F
Fig. 1.4 The ‘real’ design process
the elementary relationships used for aircraft performance, aerodynamics, and stability
and control calculations. These have often been coupled to many simplifying assump-
tions for certain categories of aircraft (often home-built general aviation vehicles). The
solutions which can be obtained from many such codes can be obtained more quickly,
and certainly with a much better understanding of the underlying assumptions, by
using directly the well-known relationships on which they are based. In our experience,
if students spent half the time they waste searching for a design code (which they expect
will provide an instant answer) on thinking and working through the fundamental rela-
tionships with which they are already supposedly familiar, they would find themselves
much further along in the design process.
The vast and complex design computer programs used in the aerospace industry
have not been created to do preliminary work. They are used to streamline the detail
design part of the process. Such programs are not designed to take the initial project
requirements and produce a final design. They are used to take the preliminary design,
which has followed the step-by-step processes outlined in this text, and turn it into the
thousands of detailed CAD drawings needed to develop and manufacture the finished
vehicle.
It is the task of the aircraft design students to learn the processes which will take
them from first principles and concepts, through the conceptual and preliminary design
stages, to the point where they can begin to apply detailed design codes (Figure 1.4).
At this point in time, it is impossible to envisage how the early part of the design
process will ever be replaced by off-the-shelf computer software that will automatically
design novel aircraft concepts. Even if this program were available, it is probably not
a substitute for working steadily through the design process to gain a fundamental
understanding of the intricacies involved in real aircraft design.
Reference
1 Mavris, D. et al., ‘Methodology for examining the simultaneous impact of requirements,
vehicle characteristics and technologies on military aircraft design’, ICAS 2000, Harrogate
UK, August 2000.

2
Preliminary design
Conceptual design is the organised application of innovation to a real problem to
produce a viable product for the customer.
(Anon.)
As previously described, the preliminary design phase starts with the recognition of
need. It continues until a satisfactory starting point for the conceptual design phase has
been identified. The aircraft layout at the end of the phase is referred to as the ‘baseline’
configuration. Between these two milestones there are a number of distinctive, and
partially sequential, stages to be investigated. These stages are shown in Figure 2.1 and
described below:
2.1 Problem definition
For novice aircraft designers the natural tendency when starting a project is to want
to design aircraft. This must be resisted because when most problems are originally
presented they do not include all the significant aspects surrounding the problem. As
a lot of time and effort will be spent on the design of the aircraft, it is important that
all the criteria, constraints and other factors are recognised before starting, otherwise
a lot of work and effort may be wasted. For this reason, the first part of the conceptual
design phase is devoted to a thorough understanding of the problem.
The definition of conceptual design quoted above raises a number of questions that
are useful in analysing the problem.
For example (in reverse order to the above definition):
1. Who are the customers?
2. How should we assess if the product is viable?
3. Can we completely define the problem in terms that will be useful to the technical
design process?
4. What are the new/novel features that we hope to exploit to make our design bet-
ter than the existing competition and to build in flexibility to cater for future
developments?
5. What is the best way to tackle the problem and how will this be managed?
These questions are used to gain more insight into the definition of the problem as
explained below.

Preliminary design 7
Problem definition
Information retrieval
Aircraft requirements
Configuration options
Initial sizing
Baseline evaluation
Constraint analysis
Refined baseline
Parametric analysis
Final baseline design
Baseline analysis
Project brief
Aircraft type specification
Trade studies
Fig. 2.1 The preliminary design flowchart
2.1.1 The customers
Who are your ‘customers’? They are not only the purchasers of the aircraft; many
groups of people and organisations will have an interest in the design and their
expectations and opinions should be determined. For example, it would be techni-
cally straightforward to design a new supersonic airliner to replace Concorde. The
operating and technical issues are now well understood. However, the environmental
lobby (who want to protect the upper atmosphere from further contamination) and the
airport noise abatement groups have such political influence as to render the project
unfeasible at this time. For all new designs it is necessary to identify all the influential
people and find out their views before starting the project.
Who are the influential people?
• Obviously at the top of the list are the clients (the eventual purchasers of the aircraft).
• Their customers (people who fly and use the aircraft, people who operate and
maintain it, etc.).
• Your technical director, departmental head and line supervisor (these have a
responsibility for the company and its shareholders to make a reasonable return
on investments).
• Your sales team (they know the market and understand customers and they will
eventually have to market the aircraft).

• As a student, your academic supervisors and examiners (what is it that they expect
to see from the project work).
It is useful to make a list of those people who you think will be important to the project
and then find out what views they have. In academic courses the available timescale
and facility to accomplish this consultation fully may not be available. In this case, set
up your own focus groups and role-play to try to appreciate the expected opinions of
various groups.
2.1.2 Aircraft viability
It will be impossible to make rational decisions during the detailed design stages unless
you can clearly establish how the product/aircraft is to be judged. Often this is easier
said than done, as people will have various views on what are the important criteria
(i.e. what you should use to make judgements). The aircraft manufacturing company
and particularly its directors will want the best return on their investments (ROI).
Unfortunately, so many non-technical issues are associated with ROI that it is too
complicated to be used as a design criterion in the initial stages of the project. In the
early days aircraft designers solved this dilemma by adopting aircraft mass (weight) as
their minimising criteria. They knew that aircraft mass directly affected most of the
performance and cost aspects and it had the advantage of being easy to estimate and
control. Without any other information about design criteria, minimum mass is still a
valid overall criterion to use. As more knowledge about the design and its operating
regime becomes available it is possible to use a more appropriate parameter. For exam-
ple, minimum direct operating cost (DOC) is frequently used for civil transport aircraft.
For military aircraft, total life cycle cost (LCC), operational effectiveness (e.g. lethality,
survivability, dependability, etc.) are more appropriate. High performance aircraft may
be assessed by their operating parameters (e.g. maximum speed, turn rate, sink rate).
Some time ago A. W. Bishop of British Aerospace observed:
The message is clear – if everyone can agree beforehand on how to measure the
effectiveness of the design, then the designer has a much simpler task. But even if
everyone does not agree, the designer should still quantify his own ideas to give
himself a sensible guide.
The procedure is therefore relatively simple – ask all those groups and individuals,
who you feel are important to the project, how they would assess project effectiveness.
Add any weightings you feel are appropriate to these opinions and decide for yourself
what criteria should be adopted (or get the project group to decide if you are not
working alone). Remember that the criteria must be capable of being quantified and
related to the design parameters. Criteria such as ‘quality’, ‘goodness’ and ‘general
effectiveness’ are of no use unless such a description can be translated into meaningful
design parameters. For example, the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft may be judged
by its ability to manoeuvre and launch missiles quicker than an opponent.
2.1.3 Understanding the problem
It is unusual if the full extent of the problem is included in the initial project brief. Often
the subtlety of the problem is not made clear because the people who draft the problem
are too familiar with the situation and incorrectly assume that the design team will be
equally knowledgeable. It is also found that the best solution to a problem is always

found by considering the circumstances surrounding the problem in as broad a manner
as possible. This procedure has been called ‘system engineering’. In this approach, the
aircraft is considered only as one component in the total operating environment. The
design of the aircraft is affected by the design of all the components in the whole system.
For example, a military training aircraft is only one element in the airforce flight/pilot
training process. There are many other parts to such a system including other air-
craft, flight simulators and ground schools. The training aircraft is also part of the full
operational activity of the airforce and cannot be divorced from other aircraft in the
service, the maintenance/service sector, the flight operations and other airport man-
agement activities. On the other hand, the training aircraft itself can be considered as a
total system including airframe, flight control, engine management, weapon on sensor
systems, etc. All of these systems will interact to influence the total design of the aircraft.
Such considerations may lead to conflicts in the realisation of the project. For exam-
ple, although the airforce may have a particular view of the aircraft, the manufacturers
may have a different perspective. The airforce will only be focused on their aircraft but
the manufacturers will want the aircraft to form part of a family of aircraft, which will
have commercial opportunities beyond the supply to the national airforce. Within this
context the aircraft may not be directly optimised for a particular role. The best overall
configuration for the aircraft will be a compromise between, sometimes competing,
requirements. It is the designer’s responsibility to consider the layout from all the dif-
ferent viewpoints and to make a choice on the preferred design. He therefore needs to
understand all aspects of the overall system in which the aircraft will operate. Some of
the most notable past failures in aircraft projects have arisen due to designs initially
being specified too narrowly. Conversely, successful designs have been shown to have
considerable flexibility in their design philosophy.
Part of the problem definition task is to identify the various constraints to which the
aircraft must conform. Such constraints will arise from performance and operational
requirements, airworthiness requirements, manufacturing considerations, and limita-
tion on resources. There will also be several non-technical constraints that must be
recognised. These may be related to political, social, legal, economic, and commercial
issues. However, it is important that the problem is not overconstrained as this may lead
to no feasible solution existing. To guard against this it is necessary to be forceful in
only accepting constraints that have been fully justified and their consequences under-
stood. For technical constraints (e.g. field performance, climb rate, turn performance,
etc.) there will be an opportunity to assess their influences on the design in the later
stages (a process referred to as constraint analysis). Non-technical restrictions are more
difficult to quantify and therefore must be examined carefully.
In general, the problem definition task can be related to the following questions:
• Has the problem been considered as broadly as possible? (i.e. have you taken a
systems approach?)
• Have you identified all the ‘real’ constraints to the solution of the problem?
• Are all the constraints reasonable?
• Have you thoroughly examined all the non-technical constraints to determine their
suitability? (Remember that such constraints will remain unchallenged after this
time.)
2.1.4 Innovation
The design and development of a new aircraft is an expensive business. The people who
invest in such an enterprise need to be confident that they will get a safe and profitable

return on their outlay. The basis for confidence in such projects lies in the introduction
and exploitation of new technologies and other innovations. Such developments should
give an operational and commercial advantage to the new design to make it competitive
against existing and older products. Innovation is therefore an essential element in
new aircraft design. The downside of introducing new technology is the increase in
commercial risk. The balancing of risk against technical advantage is a fundamental
challenge that must be accepted by the designers. Reduction of technological risk will be
a high priority within the total design process. Empirical tests and analytical verification
of the effects of innovative features are the designer’s insurance policy.
Innovation does not just apply to the introduction of new technology. Novel business
and commercial arrangements and new operational practices may be used to provide
a commercial edge to the new design. Whatever is planned, the designer must be able
to identify it early so that he can adjust the baseline design accordingly.
The designers should be able to answer the following questions:
• What are the new technologies and other innovations that will be incorporated into
the design?
• How will such features provide an advantage over existing/competing aircraft?
• If the success of the innovation is uncertain, how can the risk to the project be
mitigated?
2.1.5 Organising the design process
Gone are the days, if they ever existed, of a project being undertaken by an individual
working alone in a back room. Modern design practice is the synthesis of many dif-
ferent skills and expertise. Such combination of talent, as in an orchestra, requires
organisation and management to ensure that all players are using the same source of
information. The establishment of modern computer assisted design (CAD) software
and other information technology (IT) developments allows disparate groups of spe-
cialists and managers to be working on the same design data (referred to in industry
as ‘concurrent engineering’).
The organisation of such systems demands careful planning and management.
Design-build teams are sometimes created to take control of specific aircraft types
within a multi-product company. The design engineer is central to such activity and
therefore a key team player. It is essential for him to know the nature of the team
structure, the design methods to be adopted, the standards to be used, the facilities to
be required, and not least, the work schedules and deadlines to be met. Such consid-
erations are particularly significant in student project work, as there are many other
demands on team members. All students will have to personally time-manage all their
commitments.
Whether the team is selected by an advising faculty member or is self-selected, stud-
ents will face numerous challenges during the course of a design project. In most student
design projects the organisation of the work is managed by the ‘design team’. Good
team organisation and an agreed management structure are both essential to success.
These issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 11, with particular emphasis to teaming
issues in sections 11.2 and 11.3 respectively. When working in a team environment,
students are advised to consult these sections before attempting to proceed with the
preliminary design.

2.1.6 Summary
The descriptions above indicate that there is a lot of work and effort to be exerted
before it is possible to begin the laying-out of the aircraft shape. Each project is dif-
ferent so it is impossible to produce a template to use for the design process. The only
common factor is that if you start the design without a full knowledge of the problem
then you will, at best, be wasting your time but possibly also making a fool of your-
self. Use the comments and questions above to gain a complete understanding of the
problem. Write out a full description of the problem in a report to guide you in your
subsequent work.
An excellent way for design teams to begin this process of understanding the design
problem is the use of the process known as ‘brainstorming’. This is discussed in more
detail in section 11.2.5. Brainstorming is essentially a process in which all members of
a team are able to bring all their ideas about the project to the table with the assurance
that their ideas, no matter how far-fetched they may at first appear, are considered
by the team. Without such an open mind, a team rarely is able to gain a complete
understanding of the problem.
2.2 Information retrieval
Later stages of the design process will benefit from knowledge of existing work pub-
lished in the area of the project. Searching for such information will involve three
tasks:
1. Finding data on existing and competitive aircraft.
2. Finding technical reports and articles relating to the project area and any advanced
technologies to be incorporated.
3. Gathering operational experience.
2.2.1 Existing and competitive aircraft
The first of these searches is relatively straightforward to accomplish. There are several
books and published surveys of aircraft that can be easily referenced. The first task
is to compile a list of all the aircraft that are associated with the operational area.
For example, if we are asked to design a new military trainer we would find out what
training aircraft are used by the major air forces in the world. This is published in
the reviews of military aircraft, in magazines like Flight International and Aviation
Week.
Systematically go through this list, progressively gathering information and data on
each aircraft. A spreadsheet is the best way of recording numerical values for com-
mon parameters (e.g. wing area, installed thrust, aircraft weights (or masses), etc.).
A database is a good way to record other textural data on the aircraft (e.g. when first
designed and flown, how many sold and to whom, etc.). The geometrical and technical
data can be used to obtain derived parameters (e.g. wing loading, thrust to weight ratio,
empty weight fraction, etc.). Such data will be used to assist subsequent technical design
work. It is possible, using the graph plotting facilities of modern spreadsheet programs,
to plot such parameters for use in the initial sizing of the aircraft. For instance, a graph
showing wing loading against thrust loading for all your aircraft will be useful in select-
ing specimen aircraft to be used in comparison with your design. Such a plot also allows

operational differences between different aircraft types to be identified. Categories of
various aircraft types can be identified.
2.2.2 Technical reports
As there are so many technical publications available, finding associated technical
reports and articles can be time consuming. A good search engine on a computer-
based information retrieval system is invaluable in this respect. Unfortunately, such
help is not always available but even when it is, the database may not contain recent
articles. Older, but still quite relevant, technical articles might also be easily missed
when a search relies on computer search and retrieval systems. All computer search
systems are very dependent on the user’s ability to choose key words which will match
those used by whoever catalogued the material in the search system database. Success
with such systems is often both difficult and incomplete as the user and the computer
try to match an often quite different set of key words to describe a common subject.
It becomes somewhat of a game, in which two people with different backgrounds try
to describe the same physical object based on their own experiences. Often, a manual
search of shelves in a library will product far better results in less time. Manual search is
more laborious but such effort is greatly rewarded when appropriate material is found.
This makes subsequent design work easier and it provides extra confidence to the final
design proposal.
An excellent place to start a technical search is with the reference section at the end of
each chapter in your preferred textbooks. Start with a text with which you are already
familiar and track down relevant references. Do this either by using computer methods,
or in a manual search of the library shelves. This can rapidly lead to an expanding array
of background material as subsequent reference lists, in the newly found reports (etc.),
are also interrogated.
2.2.3 Operational experience
One of the best sources of information, data and advice comes from the existing area
of operation appropriate to your project. People and organisations that are currently
involved with your study area are often very willing to share their experiences. How-
ever, treat such opinions with due caution as individual responses are sometimes not
representative of the overall situation.
The best advice on information retrieved is to collect as much as you can in the
time available and to keep your lines of enquiry open so that new information can be
considered as it becomes available throughout the design process.
2.3 Aircraft requirements
From the project brief and the first two stages of the design process it is now possible
to compile a statement regarding the requirements that the aircraft should meet. Such
requirements can be considered under five headings:
1. Market/Mission
2. Airworthiness/other standards
3. Environment/Social

4. Commercial/Manufacturing
5. Systems and equipment
The detail to be considered under each of these headings will naturally vary depending
on the type of aircraft. Some general advice for each section is offered below but it will
also be necessary to consider specific issues relating to your design.
2.3.1 Market and mission issues
The requirements associated with the mission will generally be included in the original
project brief. Such requirements may be in the form of point performance values (e.g.
field length, turn rates, etc.), as a description of the mission profile(s), or as opera-
tional issues (e.g. payload, equipment to be carried, offensive threats, etc.). The market
analysis that was undertaken in the problem definition phase might have produced
requirements that are associated with commonality of equipment or engines, aircraft
stretch capability, multi-tasking, costs and timescales.
2.3.2 Airworthiness and other standards
For all aircraft designs, it is essential to know the airworthiness regulations that are
appropriate. Each country applies its own regulations for the control of the design,
manufacture, maintenance and operation of aircraft. This is done to safeguard its pop-
ulation from aircraft accidents. Many of these national regulations are similar to the
European Joint Airworthiness Authority (JAA) and US-Federal Aviation Administra-
tion(FAA)rules.1,2
Eachoftheseregulationscontainsspecificoperationalrequirements
that must be adhered to if the aircraft is to be accepted by the technical authority
(ultimately the national government from which the aircraft will operate). Airworthi-
ness regulations always contain conditions that affect the design of the aircraft (e.g.
for civil aircraft the minimum second segment climb gradient at take-off with one
engine failed). Although airworthiness documents are not easy to read because they
are legalistic in form, it is important that the design team understands all the implica-
tions relating to their design. Separate regulations apply to military and civil aircraft
types and to different classes of aircraft (e.g. very light aircraft, gliders, heavy air-
craft, etc.). It is also important to know what operational requirements apply to
the aircraft (e.g. minimum number of flight crew, maintenance, servicing, reliabil-
ity, etc.). The purchasers of the aircraft may also insist that particular performance
guarantees are included in the sales contract (e.g. availability, timescale, fuel use,
etc.). Obviously all the legal requirements are mandatory and must be met by the
aircraft design. The design team must therefore be fully conversant with all such
conditions.
2.3.3 Environmental and social issues
Social implications on the design and operation of the aircraft arise mainly from the
control of noise and emissions. For civil aircraft such regulations are vested in separate
operationalregulations.3
Forlightaircraft, someairfieldshavelocallyappliedoperation
restrictions to avoid noise complaints from adjacent communities. Such issues are
becoming increasingly significant to aircraft design.

2.3.4 Commercial and manufacturing considerations
Political issues may affect the way in which the aircraft is to be manufactured. Large
aircraft projects will involve a consortium of companies and governments (e.g. Airbus).
This will directly dictate the location of design and manufacturing activity. Such influ-
ence may also extend to the supply of specific systems, engines and components to be
used on the aircraft. If such restrictions are to be applied, the design team should be
aware of them as early as possible in the design process.
2.3.5 Systems and equipment requirements
Aircraft manufacture is no longer just concerned with the supply of a suitable airframe.
All aircraft/engine and other operational systems have a significant influence in the
overall design philosophy. Today many aircraft are not technically viable without their
associated flying and control systems. Where such integration is to be adopted the
design team must include this in the aircraft requirements. This aspect is particularly
significant for the design of military aircraft that rely on weapon and other sensor
systems to function effectively (e.g. stealth). Regulations for military aircraft usually
fully describe the systems that the airframe must support.
2.4 Configuration options
With a fully described set of regulations, knowledge of existing aircraft data and a
complete understanding of the problem, it is now possible to start the technical design
tasks. Many project designers regard this stage as the best part of all the design pro-
cesses. The question to be answered is simply this: Starting with a completely clear
mind, what configurational options can you suggest that may solve the problem? For
example, a two-seat light touring aircraft could be: side-by-side or tandem seating, high
or low wing, tractor or pusher engine, canard or tail stabilised, nose or tail wheeled,
conventional or novel planform (e.g. box wing, joined wing, delta, tandem), etc.
The following stage of the design process will sort through the ‘weird and wonderful’
configurations to eliminate the unfeasible and uncompetitive layouts. At this point in
the layout process a quantity of ideas is needed and a judgement on their suitability
will be left until later. With this in mind it is unnecessary to elaborate on an option
past the point at which its characteristics can be appreciated. A good starting point
for this work is to list the configurations that past and existing aircraft of this type
have adopted. A brief synopsis of the strength and weaknesses of each option may be
written so that improvements to the designs can be identified. Such analysis will also
help in the concept-filtering phase that will follow.
In the conceptual design stage, designers have two options available for their choice of
engines. Namely a ‘fixed’ (i.e. a specified/existing or manufacturers’ projected engine),
or an ‘open’ design (in which the engine parameters are not known). In most cases,
and definitely at later stages in the design process, the size and type of engine will
have been determined. The aircraft manufacturer will prefer that more than one engine
supplier is available for his project. In this way he can be more competitive on price and
supply deadlines. For design studies in which the engine choice is open, it is possible
to adopt what is known as a ‘rubber’ engine. Obviously, such engines do not exist in
practice. The type and initial size of the rubber engine can be based on existing or

4000
260
300
340
380
5000 6000
Number of seats (3 class)
7000 8000 9000
Aircraft range (with reserves) (nm)
Fig. 2.2 Aircraft development programme (Boeing 777)
engine manufacturers’ projected engine designs. Using a rubber engine, the aircraft
designer has the opportunity to scale the engine to exactly match the optimum size for
his airframe. Such optimisations enable the designer to identify the best combination
of airframe and engine parameters. If an engine of the preferred size is not available, in
the timescale of the project, the designer will need to reconfigure the airframe to match
an available engine. Rubber engine studies show the best combination of airframe and
engine parameters for a design specification and can be used to assess the penalties of
selecting an available engine.
Aircraft and engine configuration and size is often compromised at the initial design
stage to allow for aircraft growth (either by accidental weight growth or by intent (air-
craft stretch)). Such issues must be kept in mind when considering the various options.
Most aircraft projects start with a single operational purpose but over a period of time
develop into a family of aircraft. Figure 2.2 shows the development originally envis-
aged by Boeing for their B777 airliner family. For military aircraft such developments
are referred to as multi-role (e.g. trainer, ground support, etc.). It is important that
designers appreciate future developments at an early design stage and allow for such
flexibility, if desired.
2.5 Initial baseline sizing
At the start of this stage you will have a lot of design options available together with
a full and detailed knowledge of the problem. It would be impossible and wasteful
to start designing all of these options so the first task is to systematically reduce the
number. First, all the obviously unfeasible and crazy ideas should be discarded but be
careful that potentially good ideas are not thrown out with the rubbish. Statements
and comments in the aircraft regulations and the problem definition reports will help
to filter out uneconomic, weak and ineffective options. The object should be to reduce

the list to a single preferred option but sometimes this is not possible and you may
need to take another one or two into the next design stage. Obviously, the workload
will be increased in the next stages if more options are continued. Eventually it will be
necessary to choose a single aircraft configuration. This will mean that all the work on
the rejected options may be wasted.
This can be a very difficult part of the design process for a student design team.
At this point, it is common for each member of the team to have invested a lot of
time and energy into his or her own proposed design concept. It is often difficult to
get team members to release their emotional ties to their own proposals and begin to
embrace those of others or even to find a viable compromise. To get through this stage
of the process both good team management and an effective means of comparing and
evaluating all proposed concepts are required. Some of these difficulties are discussed
in Chapter 11 (section 11.2). All proposed solutions to the design objective need to be
given a fair and impartial assessment during the selection of the final concept. Obvi-
ously, a compromise solution which draws upon key elements of every team member’s
contributions will result in a happier set of team players. On the other hand, it is
important that the selected concept embodies the best design elements that the team
has developed. These must be chosen for the benefit of the overall design and not just
to keep each member of the team happy.
Once decisions have been made on the configuration(s) to be further considered it
is necessary to size the aircraft. A three-view general arrangement scale drawing for
each aircraft configuration will be required. Little detail will be known at this stage
about the aircraft parameters (wing size, engine thrust, and aircraft weight) so some
crude estimates have to be made. This is where data from previous/existing aircraft
designs will be useful. Although the new design will be different from previous aircraft,
such inconsistencies can be ignored at this stage. Use representative values from one
or a small group of the specimen aircraft for wing loading, thrust loading and aircraft
take-off weight. It is also possible to use a representative wing shape and associated
tail sizes.
The design method that follows is an iterative process that usually converges on a
feasible configuration quickly. The initial general arrangement drawing, produced to
match existing aircraft parameters, provides the starting point for this process. Even
though your design is relatively crude at this stage it is important to draw it to scale
making approximations for the relative longitudinal position of the wing and fuselage
and the location of tail surfaces and landing gear.
Most aircraft layouts start with the drawing of the fuselage. For many designs the
geometry of the fuselage can be easily proportioned as it houses the payload and
cockpit/flight deck. These parameters are normally specified in the project brief. They
can be sized using design data from other aircraft. The non-fuselage components (e.g.
wing, tail, engines and landing gear) are added as appropriate. With a reasonable
first guess at the aircraft configuration, the aircraft can be sized by making an initial
estimate of the aircraft mass. Once this is completed it is possible to more accur-
ately define the aircraft shape by using the predicted mass to fix the wing area and
engine size.
2.5.1 Initial mass (weight) estimation
The first step is to make a more accurate prediction of the aircraft maximum (take-off)
mass/weight. (Note: if SI units are used for all calculations it is appropriate to consider
aircraft mass (kilograms) in place of aircraft weight (Newtons).)

Aircraft design textbooks4,5,6
show that the aircraft take-off mass can be found from:
MUL
MTO =
1 − (ME/MTO) − (MF/MTO)
where MTO = maximum take-off mass
MUL
∗
= mass of useful load (i.e. payload, crew and operational items)
M ∗
= empty mass
E
MF = fuel mass
(*When using the above equation it is important not to double account for mass com-
ponents. If aircraft operational mass is used for ME, the crew and operational items in
MUL would not be included. One of the main difficulties in the analysis at this stage is
the variability of definitions used for mass components in published data on existing air-
craft. Some manufacturers will regard the crew as part of the useful load but others will
include none or just the minimum flight crew in their definition of empty/operational
mass. Such difficulties will be only transitional in the development of your design, as
the next stage requires a more detailed breakdown of the mass items.)
The three unknowns on the right-hand side of the equation can be considered
separately:
(a) Useful load
The mass components that contribute to MUL are usually specified in the project
brief and aircraft requirement reports/statements.
(b) Empty mass ratio
The aircraft empty mass ratio (ME/MTO) will vary for different types of aircraft
and for different operational profiles. All that can be done to predict this value
at the initial sizing stage is to assume a value that is typical of the aircraft and
type of operation under consideration. The data from existing/competitor aircraft
collected earlier is a good source for making this prediction. Figure 2.3 shows
how the data might be viewed. Alternatively, aircraft design textbooks often quote
representative values for the ratio for various aircraft types.
Max. take-off mass (MTO)
Empty mass (ME)
Three engines
Four engines
Slope (ME/MTO)
= 0.55
More than two= 0.47
Two engines
Two engines
Fig. 2.3 Analysis of existing aircraft data (example)

a – take-off, b – climb, c – cruise, d – step climp, e – continued cruise,
f – descent, g – diversion, h – hold, i – landing at alternate airstrip.
a
b
c
d e
f
g
h
i
Fig. 2.4 Mission profile (civil aircraft example)
(c) Fuel fraction
For most aircraft the fuel fraction (MF/MTO) can be crudely estimated from the
modified Brequet range equation:
MF
MTO
= (SFC) ·
1
(L/D)
· (time)
where (SFC) = engine specific fuel consumption (kg/N/hr)
(L/D) = aircraft lift to drag ratio
(time) = hours at the above conditions
The mission profile will have been specified in the project brief. Figure 2.4 illustrates
a hypothetical profile for a civil aircraft.
This shows how the mission profile consists of several different segments (climb,
cruise, etc.). The fuel fraction for each segment must be determined and then
summed. Reserve fuel is added to account for parts of the mission not calculated.
For example:
(a) for the fuel used in the warm-up and taxi manoeuvres,
(b) for the effects on fuel use of non-standard atmospheric conditions (e.g. winds),
(c) for the possibility of having to divert and hold at alternative airfield when
landing.
The last item above is particularly significant for civil operations. In such applications
designers sometimes convert the actual range flown to an equivalent still air range
(ESAR) using a multiplying factor that accounts for all of the extra (to cruise) fuel.
When using the Brequet range equation it must be remembered that both engine
(SFC) and aircraft (L/D) will be different for different flight conditions. These vari-
ations arise because the aircraft speed, altitude, weight and engine setting will be
different for each flight segment. Typical values for (SFC) can be found in engine
data books7
or from aircraft and engine textbooks4,8
for the type of engine to
be used.
The aircraft lift to drag ratio (L/D) will vary and be dependent on aircraft geometry
(particularly wing angle of attack). Such values are not easily available for the aircraft in
the initial design stage. However, we know that previous designers have tried to achieve
a high value in the principal flight phase (e.g. cruise). We can use the fact that in cruise

‘lift equals weight’ and ‘drag equals thrust’. We can therefore transpose (L/D) into
(W/T). Both aircraft weight and engine thrust (at cruise) could be estimated from our
specimen aircraft data. This value will be close to the maximum (L/D) and relate only
to the cruise condition. At flight conditions away from this point the value of (L/D)
will reduce. It must be stressed that the engine thrust level in cruise will be substantially
less than the take-off condition due to reduced engine thrust setting and the effect of
altitude and speed. This reduction in thrust is referred to as ‘lapse rate’. Engine specific
fuel consumption will also change with height and speed. Values for (L/D) vary over
a wide range depending on the aircraft type and configuration. Typical values range
from 30 to 50 for gliders, 15 to 20 for transport/civil aircraft, 12 to 15 for smaller aircraft
with reasonable aspect ratio and less than 10 for military aircraft with short span delta
wing planforms. Aircraft design textbooks are a source of information on aircraft
(L/D) if the values cannot be estimated from the engine cruise conditions and aircraft
weight.
(Time) is usually easy to specify as each of the mission segments is set out in the
project brief (mission profiles). Alternatively, it can be found by dividing the distance
flown in a segment by the average speed in that segment.
2.5.2 Initial layout drawing
Obviously, all the above calculations require a lot of ‘guesstimation’ but at least at the
end we will have a better estimate of the aircraft maximum take-off mass than previ-
ously. This value can then be used in conjunction with the previously assumed values
for wing and thrust loading to refine the size of the wing and engine(s). The original
concept drawing can be modified to match these changes. This drawing becomes the
initial ‘baseline’ aircraft configuration.
2.6 Baseline evaluation
The methods used up to this point to produce the baseline aircraft configuration have
been based mainly on data from existing aircraft and engines. In the next stage of the
design process it is necessary to conduct a more in-depth and aircraft focused analysis.
This will start with a detailed estimation of aircraft mass. This is followed by detailed
aerodynamic and propulsion estimates. With aircraft mass, aerodynamic and engine
parameters better defined it is then possible to conduct more accurate performance
estimations. The baseline evaluation stage ends with a report that defines a modified
baseline layout to match the new data. A brief description of each analysis conducted
in this evaluation stage is given below.
2.6.1 Mass statement
Since the geometrical shape of each part of the aircraft is now specified, it is possible
to make initial estimates for the mass of each component. This may be done by using
empirical equations, as quoted in many design textbooks, or simply by assuming a
value for the component as a proportion of the aircraft maximum or empty mass.
Such ratios are also to be found in design textbooks or could match values for similar
aircraft types, if known. The list below is typical of the detail that can be achieved.

Generating a mass statement like this one is the first task in the baseline evaluation
phase.
Wing (MW)
Tail (MT)
Body (MB)
Nacelle (MN)
Landing gear (MU)
Control surfaces (MCS)

total aircraft structure (MST)
Engine basic (dry)
Engine systems
Induction (intakes)
Nozzle (exhaust)
Installation

total propulsion system (MP)
Aircraft systems and equipment (MSE)

aircraft empty mass = ME = MST + MP + MSE
Operational items (MOP)

aircraft operational empty mass (MOE) = ME + MOP
Crew* (MC)
Payload (MPL)
Fuel (MF)

aircraft take-off mass (MTO) = MOE + MC + MPL + MF
(*For some military aircraft mass statements, the crew are considered to form part of
the operational items and their mass is added to aircraft OEM.)
The main structural items in the list above (e.g. wing, fuselage, engine, etc.) can be
estimated using statistically determined formulae which can be found in most aircraft
design textbooks. (Note: if you are working in SI units be careful to convert mass
values from historical reports, journals, and current US textbooks to kilograms (1 kg =
2.205 lb).) Many of these mass items are dependent on MTO, therefore estimations
involve an iterative process that starts with the assumed value of MTO, as estimated in
the initial sizing stage. Spreadsheet ‘solver’ methods will be useful when performing
this analysis.
At the early design stages, the estimation of mass for some of the less significant (and
smaller) components may be too time consuming to calculate in detail (e.g. tail, landing
gear, flight controls, engine systems and components, etc.). To speed up the evaluation
process, these can be estimated by assuming typical percentage values of MTO, as
mentioned above. Such values can be found from existing aircraft mass breakdowns, if
available, or from aircraft design textbooks.
At the final stages of the conceptual phase an aircraft mass will be selected which
is slightly higher than the estimated value of MTO. This higher weight is known as
the ‘aircraft design mass’. All the structural and system components will be evaluated
using the value for the aircraft design weight as this provides an insurance against
weight growth in subsequent stages of the design process. For aircraft performance
estimation, the mass to be used may be either the MTO value shown above or some-
thing less (e.g. military aircraft manoeuvring calculations are frequently associated

with the aircraft operational empty mass plus defensive weapons and half fuel load
only).
2.6.2 Aircraft balance
With the mass of each component estimated and with a scale layout drawing of the
aircraft it is possible, using educated guesses, to position the centre of mass for each
component. This will allow the centre of gravity of the aircraft in various load condi-
tions (i.e. different combinations of fuel or payload) to be determined. It is common
practice to estimate the extreme positions (forward and aft) so that the trim loads on
the control surfaces (tail/canard) and the reaction loads on the undercarriage wheels
can be assessed.
Up to this point in the design process, the longitudinal position of the wing along
the fuselage has been guessed. As part of the determination of the aircraft centre(s)
of gravity, it is possible to check this position and, by iteration, to reposition it to
suit the aircraft lift and inertia force (i.e. mass × acceleration) vectors. This process
is referred to as ‘aircraft balancing’. As moving the wing will affect the position of
the aircraft centre of gravity and the wing lift aerodynamic centre from the datum,
several iterations may be required. There are several methods that can be used to reduce
the complications inherent in this iteration. The simplest method sets the position of the
aircraft operational empty mass relative to a chosen point (per cent chord aft of the wing
leading edge) on the wing mean aerodynamic chord line. To start the process the aircraft
operational empty mass components are divided into two separate groups:
(a) Wing mass group (MWG) (and associated components) – this will include the wing
structure, fuel system (if the fuel is housed in the wing), main landing gear unit
(even if it is structurally attached to the fuselage), wing mounted engines and all
wing attached systems.
(b) Fuselage mass group (MFG) (and associated components) – this group will include
the fuselage structure, equipment, cockpit and cabin furnishings and systems,
operational items, airframe services, crew, tail structure, nose landing gear and
fuselage mounted engines and systems.
Note: if the position of wing mounted engines is linked to internal fuselage layout
requirements(e.g. propellerplanebeinlinewithnon-passengerareas)thenthesemasses
should be transferred to the fuselage group.
Obviously all the aircraft components relating to the aircraft operational empty mass
must be included in either of the above groups (i.e. MOE = MWG+MFG). It is important
to check that none of the component masses has been omitted before starting the
balancing process.
It is possible to determine the centres of mass separately for each of the two mass
groups above. The distance of the wing group centre of mass from the leading edge of
the wing mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is deﬁned as XWG (see Figure 2.5a).
The next stage is to select a suitable location for the centre of gravity of the aircraft
operational empty weight, on the wing mean aerodynamic chord. If the centre of gravity
is too far aft or forward then the balancing loads from the tail (or canard) will be high.
This will result in a requirement for larger tail surfaces and thereby increased aircraft
mass and trim drag. For most conventional aircraft conﬁgurations, a centre of gravity
position coincident with the 25 per cent MAC position behind the wing leading edge
is considered a good starting position. If it is known that loading the aircraft from the
operational empty mass will progressively move the aircraft centre of gravity forward,

then a 35 per cent MAC position would be a better starting point. Such cases arise on
civil airliners with rear fuselage mounted engines. Conversely, a 20 per cent MAC would
be chosen for designs with mainly aft centre of gravity movements. For aircraft flying
at supersonic speed the centre of lift will be at about the 50 per cent MAC position.
This must be carefully allowed for when selecting the operational mass position. The
location of the chosen operational empty mass location with respect to the leading edge
of the wing mean aerodynamic chord is defined as XOE.
It is possible to take moments of the aircraft masses shown in Figure 2.5a. By rear-
ranging the moment equation, the position of the fuselage group mass relative to line
XX can be calculated. The resulting equation is shown below:
XFG = XOE + (XOE − XWG)(MWG/MFG)
Overlays of the separate wing and fuselage layouts provide the best method of fixing
the wing relative to fuselage. On a plan view of the wing, determine the position of
the wing MAC and its intersection with the wing leading edge (line XX). Also, on this
drawing show the position of the wing group centre of mass, see Figure 2.5b.
Measure the distance XWG from this drawing and use it in the formula above together
with the selected value of XOE and the calculated wing and fuselage group masses (MWG
and MFG), to evaluate the distance XFG. On a plan view of the fuselage, determine the
position of the fuselage group mass centre (using any convenient datum plane) then
draw a line XX at a distance XFG forward of this position, as shown in Figure 2.5c.
Overlay the wing and fuselage diagram lines XX. This is the correct location of
wing and fuselage to give the aircraft operational centre of gravity at the previously
selected position on the wing MAC. It is not unusual to discover by this process that the
originally assumed position of the wing relative to the fuselage, on the aircraft layout
drawing, is incorrect and must be changed.
With the aircraft balanced, it is now possible to determine the range of aircraft centre
of gravity movement about the operational empty position and to assess the effect of
this on the tail sizing. Obviously, it is preferable to design for small movements of the
aircraft centre of gravity to ensure the control forces are small. To do this, the disposable
items of mass (fuel and payload) should be centred close to the aircraft operational
empty centre of gravity position as practical.
At this stage in the development of the aircraft geometry it is possible to position the
undercarriage units. The process involves geometric and load calculations associated
with the aircraft mass and centre of gravity range. The main units must allow for
adequate rotation of the aircraft on take-off and in the landing attitude. When the
aircraft is in the maximum tail down attitude, the aircraft rearmost centre of gravity
position must be forward of the wheel reactions. This will ensure the aircraft does not
stay in this position. The loads on the main and nose units can be determined by simple
mechanics. Make sure that the nose wheel load is not excessive as this will require a large
tailplane force to lift the nose on take-off. On the other hand, if the load is too small on
the nose wheel it will not generate an effective steering force. The forces determined for
each unit will dictate the tyre size commensurate with the allowable tyre pressure and
runway point-load capability. Several aircraft design textbooks include undercarriage
layout guidelines.
2.6.3 Aerodynamic analysis
At the same time as the mass and balance estimation is made, or sequentially after if you
are working alone, it is possible to make the initial estimations for the baseline aircraft
aerodynamic characteristics (drag and lift). The aircraft drag estimation, like mass,

(a)
(b)
X
XFG
MFG
MOE = L
MWG
XOE
X WG
X
Required
position of
aircraft
MOE centre
of gravity
CT
CT
XOE
CT
X
X
C/2 Chord line
Wing MAC
Position of M WG
centre of gravity
Assumed
position
of aircraft
MOE
behind MAC
leading edge
Intersection
of wing MAC
with LE
Position of MFG
centre of gravity
XFG
As calculated
from formula
X
X
(c)
Fig. 2.5 Aircraft balance methodology (diagrams a, b and c)

Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf

Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf

Similar to Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf (20)

More from Wendy Belieu

More from Wendy Belieu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students by J.R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman.pdf